Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

That is because you haven't read or understood what this anti-science religionist moron has written. Look at Message 458. That's just one of half a dozen you can find upthread if you look.He is a creationist. Messianic jew means nothing. He's a fundamentalist radical christian. Theist. Creationist. Liar. Dolt.Look at the texts, Phat. Kleinman is as much a believer in the disproven stupidity of the genesis myth as are you. And he has his faux-math to prove it.He is here, as are all radical creationists, to do righteous battle with the evil of evolution. The same old shit they've been trying and failing at for the last 100 years. Of course. What did you expect in a conversation with an intellectually vacant theist? If he did then he did a shitty job. The math people here and other forums have shown Kleiman's math is useless self-serving drivel.The guy is a lying anti-science religionist. And a charlatan at that trying to click-bait his errant papers into view. There is no reason we should not stomp on his head then tar and feather his creationist ass.

I'll leave that to the experts, of which you are not one.

Kleinman:

---

Kleinman rarely talks about religion in his math or dogma.

nwr:

---

His creationist spiel is driven by his religion.

---

---

The great mathematician nwr decides to join in. nwr will now explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for two or more simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Sorry, I forgot, nwr doesn't have either the intelligence or the skill to do the mathematics of biological processes. That would make nwr an ideal candidate for an instructor for a biologists survey of mathematics course.

Kleinman:

---

That's a simpleton's explanation. When do those mutations occur, and how do the probabilities of adaptation change with the population sizes of the variants?

Taq:

---

It's how those beneficial mutations move towards fixation that differs between sexual and asexual populations. That's the part you keep getting wrong.

---

---

Now you are being stupid. Fixation is a consequence of biological competition, not descent with modification. You confuse biological competition with descent with modification, but that shouldn't be surprising, so do most biologists.

Kleinman:

---

This is a case of a constant environment with a single selection pressure.

Taq:

---

Just like the Lenski experiment which you claim is a valid experiment for demonstrating descent with modification.
​
Also, you keep skipping the fact that the sexual and asexual populations were in the same exact environments. However, there was no clonal interference in the sexual populations, contrary to your papers on the math of evolution.

---

---

You really are an idiot. The probability of an adaptive mutation occurring doesn't depend on a constant or changing environment. It only depends on the number of replications done by the different variants in the population. Recombination on the other hand is strongly affected by whether the selection conditions are constant or variable because it affects which alleles are amplified. Until you recognize that Desai subjected his populations to constant selection for 90 generations before allowing them to sexually replicate, you will not understand how biological evolution works. If you think that all biological evolution works this way, you really are an idiot.

Kleinman:

---

You are making a mistake in generalizing the behavior of the Desai experiment to all cases of recombination.

Taq:

---

So says the person who generalizes to all of evolution based on two experiments using asexual populations.

---

---

Then, why don't you explain how descent with modification works for sexual replicators? You are so confused, you think that biological competition and recombination are the same processes as descent with modification. That explains why you have failed to explain biological evolution, even for asexual replicators.

Kleinman:

---

And explain to us how descent with modification creates new alleles for sexually replicating populations, not just that mutations occur.

Taq:

---

I already did that. Here it is again.

---

---

You are a liar. You haven't explained descent with modification. All you have done is blah, blah, blah, about biological competition and recombination. No Taq, you don't need to walk me through that paper. It is a single selection pressure, constant environment, evolutionary process that you so ignorantly want to apply to all biological evolution. You are wrong, and that is why combination selection pressures work for HIV, weeds, and insects. It appears that in your 26 years of research that you never learned what combination selection pressures do to a population in a varying environment. Why don't you explain why recombination doesn't help these populations evolve since you won't explain how descent with modification works for a sexually replicating population?

Kleinman:

---

You are not paying attention Taq, I considered the probabilities of recombination.

Taq:

---

Then why do you keep claiming that clonal interference is a problem in human evolution?

---

---

It is because humans and every other replicator is not evolving in a constant environment. You need to learn where experiments in biological evolution diverge from evolution in real environments. For example, a constant environment of 90 generations allows some alleles to amplify. This doesn't happen when the environment is changing such as in "real world" environments. As long as you take this as fact, you will fail to understand real evolutionary processes. That's why you have failed to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

Kleinman:

---

It shows that the probabilities of recombination depend on the frequencies of the different variants in the population. Unless the adaptive alleles can increase in frequencies (as in the Desai experiment), the adaptive recombination event does not occur such as with HIV, weeds, and insects subject to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.

Taq:

---

Except that it does.

---

---

Master virologist, Taq, now claims that combination therapy doesn't work for treating HIV, weeds, and insects. That's your cue for saying "I never said that". Taq quotes a 10-year-old paper that shows that recombination causes HIV treatment to fail, therefore, combination therapy for the treatment of HIV does not work. You are brilliant, you should get your claim published.

Kleinman:

---

You never know, Jesus works in some mysterious ways.

Theodoric:

---

So not Jewish.

---

---

Does being an atheist make you a master of all religions? It certainly doesn't make you a master of biological evolution. In fact, it makes you pretty stupid, you can't even explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Here's how it works. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for two or more simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Theodoric has trouble doing the mathematics of biological evolution but he is a master of all religions.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you tell us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

AZPaul3:

---

I'll leave that to the experts, of which you are not one.

---

---

Yeah, right. Biologists have had more than 60 years to figure out how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Of course, for a dimwit like you, that makes them experts. They don't understand the laws of thermodynamics and they can't explain a simple biological evolutionary problem. You are an ignoramus that looks to other ignoramuses to explain a simple thermodynamics problem. You are just mad because your bubble has burst and you need another reason to justify your belief in atheism.

Belief in atheism. Wow. You really don't comprehend the issues at all.Atheism is, literally, no belief.Now your twisted creationist brain is going to go down a dueling-definitions rabbit hole trying to fight this well established fact. Stupid.You're a fraud, Kleinman. And everyone needs to hear it. Often. They know a hell of a lot more than you and can explain their discipline a hell of a lot better than you.You are an ignorant fraud, Kleinman.

Kleinman:

---

You are just mad because your bubble has burst and you need another reason to justify your belief in atheism.

AZPaul3:

---

Belief in atheism. Wow. You really don't comprehend the issues at all.
​
Atheism is, literally, no belief.

---

---

I believe you AZPaul3, you don't believe in anything, except everything you believe in. For example, you believe that reptiles evolve into birds, and fish evolve into mammals. And you know that is a fact because someone told you they had a transitional fossil. Of course, that someone can't tell you how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You started out as a naive school child and you have grown into a naive adult.

You forgot, he's also a QUACK!

If that is what you think then you know nothing about biology. It isn't a changing environment that causes clonal interference. I never said that.You claimed that multi-drug resistance does not evolve in HIV, and that it definitely doesn't do so by recombination. In reality, it does. Reality wins. You are wrong.

So says the person who can't measure the entropy of a DNA sequence, and a person who thinks changing environments cause clonal interference in sexual organisms.

Then you don't understand what either is. You are missing a big part of the probability which is the total number of possible beneficial mutations in a given genome in a given environment. That is why adaptive mutations for different phenotypes will occur at different rates, such as in the case of the Lederberg experiment where beneficial mutation rates differed by a factor of 1,000 for different adaptive phenotypes.This is the part you keep getting wrong. It's like claiming the odds of guessing heads on the flip of a coin is 1 in 150 million because those are the odds of winning the Powerball. Why would a changing environment cause clonal interference in a sexual population? Explain. The asexual populations were in the same exact conditions, and they had clonal interference. The sexual populations did not. Can you explain this or not? Guess what, it has nothing to do with the constant environment. If it did, then there wouldn't have been clonal interference in the asexual populations. I ALREADY HAVE!!!!! Notice the bit about beneficial mutations moving towards fixation independently of other alleles? That's how it works.added in edit . . .If you need a more obvious explanation:

quote:

---

Because the availability, frequency, and strength of beneficial and deleterious mutations vary depending on the environment, ALE [adaptive laboratory evolution] in different environments can yield different intra-population dynamics. In many environments, clonal interference shapes population structure during microbial adaptive evolution, wherein many beneficial mutations co-arise and compete as subpopulations (Fig. 1)19,20. The presence of sexual recombination is theorized to have two advantages for an evolving population: reducing clonal interference thereby speeding evolution (Fig. 1d) and to break apart hitchhiking (deleterious or neutral) mutations from strong beneficial mutations. Additionally, an increased mutation rate is expected to expedite the rate of fitness improvement by increasing the availability of beneficial mutations (Fig. 1c), but also increase the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
Sexual recombination and increased mutation rate expedite evolution of Escherichia coli in varied fitness landscapes - PMC

---

No. We KNOW that reptiles and birds share a common ancestor millions of years ago. No. We KNOW that hundreds of millions of years ago aquatic creatures adapted to land and from there the amphibians evolved into separate distinct lineages including reptiles extending to mammals and on to lying religionists. I have an elevated level of confidence in the conclusions of experts that study and identify fossils showing evolved traits between lineages.I have no confidence in the insinuations or pronouncements of a religious fraud like yourself. Neither can you Kleinman. In many forums your studies and their conclusions have been shown to be a fake. You are a known fraud.You are religion. Lying evil. You are poison to the human species.

You can't tell us how drug resistance evolves. You get it wrong at every turn.For example, why does chloramphenicol resistance evolve faster in sexual hypermutating strains of E. coli than it does in standard and hypermutating strains of asexual E. coli? Why does sexual reproduction fail to speed up evolution of trimethoprim resistance?Sexual recombination and increased mutation rate expedite evolution of Escherichia coli in varied fitness landscapes - PMC